You are not logged in.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:...if it is democratically elected, it is not a corporation.
You seem to be unaware that many states have laws that allow the formation of democratically controlled cooperative corporations. I was a member of a food coop when I lived in Sacramento County, California. The State of California has laws that apply specifically to cooperative corporations. The California Codes are all online so you can look up those laws if you want to inform yourself.
A coop summary is provided in the Rochdale Principles; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_ … er_control
Do you invest your money in stocks? Do you think a person who has more of his money invested in a corporation should have more say in how his investments are spent than someone who has no investments in that corporation? It is just common sense, your percentage ownership in a company determines how much voting rights you have, a person with the largest amount invested should by right have the greatest say, otherwise why should he invest his money in the first place, if other people who have not invested are going to use their democratic vote to determine how it is spent. A corporation is not a democracy, all investors do not have equal shares so they do not have equal votes. The main concern for shareholders is their return on their investment, people who do not own shares have no concern for a return on their investments as they have nothing invested in the corporation.
Offline
It is just common sense, your percentage ownership in a company determines how much voting rights you have...
Section 12200 of the California Corporations Code provides, in part, “This part shall be known as the Cooperative Corporation Law.” And Section 12480 provides, in part, “each member entitled to vote shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the members”.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces … nNum=12480.
Please do not try to tell me that democratically controlled cooperative corporations do not exist. If you do so then I will conclude that you are just jerking me around.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
In the United States, publicly regulated utilities may have the power of eminent domain to acquire right of ways for pipelines and other infrastructure but the exercise of that power is subject to judicial review.
In Canada, they don't. There is no such thing as "eminent domain". Municipalities have the right to expropriate, subject to judicial review. Federal and provincial governments can expropriate, again subject to judicial review. Several large projects such as oil pipelines have been held up in court for years. Corporations absolutely do not.
Offline
Scott: We have co-op corporations here in Canada. A grocery store, a gas station, a condominium building. You certainly will never raise the billions of dollars required that way.
Offline
Tom Kalbfus wrote:It is just common sense, your percentage ownership in a company determines how much voting rights you have...
Section 12200 of the California Corporations Code provides, in part, “This part shall be known as the Cooperative Corporation Law.” And Section 12480 provides, in part, “each member entitled to vote shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the members”.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces … nNum=12480.
Please do not try to tell me that democratically controlled cooperative corporations do not exist. If you do so then I will conclude that you are just jerking me around.
You ever run a business? Who should control the business other than the majority shareholders? It is your money, why should other people control what you own?
Offline
Scott: We have co-op corporations here in Canada. A grocery store, a gas station, a condominium building. You certainly will never raise the billions of dollars required that way.
Tharsis Transportation Cooperative
Let’s suppose that the Director of the Mars Secretariat issues one Mars Settlement Permit to each of six Mars Society chapters. Next, each of those six chapters adopts a resolution fixing the latitude and longitude of the “Initial Point” of its land survey system. Those points are approximately at the vertices of a regular hexagon. The distance between each pair of adjacent vertices is about 20 miles.
The six chapters ask the Director to give them a permit to establish a spaceport near the center of the hexagon. The Director issues the permit. The chapters deliver “Articles of Incorporation” to the Director and they thereby establish a cooperative corporation that will build and manage the spaceport. The Articles specify the location of the “Initial Point” of the spaceport. The Articles specify that the spaceport will be governed by a Board of Regents and that each chapter may elect one Regent. Each Regent may cast one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the Regents. The Board offers to sell “spaceport development bonds” to investors on Earth.
“Class A” bonds are offered to terrestrial sovereigns. Each Class A bond costs one billion dollars and includes the promise that at least ten of the bond-holder’s citizens will be among the first 2,000 people who are allowed to emigrate to Mars and establish homes in the six settlements.
The bonds sell like hotcakes. Tens of billions of dollars flow into the treasury of the Tharsis Transportation Cooperative. Construction of the spaceport is completed under budget and ahead of schedule. The Board of Regents wins the Donald J. Trump Award for Entrepreneurial Exuberance. Wow!
The foregoing scenario is replicated all around Mars with such speed that people begin to fret that Mars has a population problem. Oh Heavens! Whatever shall we do?
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
MarsOne has already raised as much money as you can that way. They haven't released exactly how much they have, but estimates are around $10 million.
Offline
You ever run a business? Who should control the business other than the majority shareholders? It is your money, why should other people control what you own?
Yes. For example, a homeowner's association. The association was controlled by the majority of shareholders, and each shareholder was eligible to cast one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the shareholders.
Are you opposed to the existence of democratically controlled non-profit corporations?
Are you opposed to the existence of democratically controlled cooperative corporations?
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Tom:
The atmosphere of Mars is not capable of sustaining human life at this time. I therefore expect that most Martians will reside and work in pressurized structures, and that most personal residences will be components of "common interest developments".
The construction of common interest developments is becoming more and more prevalent all around the world. Please watch the first 4 minutes of the first video on the page at:
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Police Protection for Homesteaders
Robert: I mentioned that there would be a Territorial Marshall at the spaceport controlled by six chapter-sponsored Mars settlements. Those settlements might be permitted to extend their police powers beyond their respective boundaries under a “joint powers agreement” which specifies that the settlements are jointly establishing the office of Territorial Marshall and empowering the Marshall to exercise police powers within an area that has a radius of 50 miles from the Initial Point of the spaceport.
The permit to establish a spaceport, issued by the Director of the Mars Secretariat, might authorize the adoption of a joint powers agreement that provides for a Territorial Marshall and for a Judge who can hear cases brought before the Judge by the Marshall.
The 50 mile radius would give the Marshall the power to police homesteads that are outside of the jurisdiction of settlements.
The term “joint powers agreement” is used in California to describe an agreement that political subdivisions of the State of California may enter into to jointly exercise the powers vested in such subdivisions by the California Constitution or by the California statutes.
I am trying to design a legal framework that does not have any gaps in it. If you see any gaps, please bring them to my attention. It might be necessary to provide for a “Prosecuting Attorney” and for a “Public Defender” but I am trying to avoid advocating a large federal bureaucracy.
Last edited by Scott Beach (2017-03-19 21:23:12)
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
What you describe actually sounds more complicated. My proposal starts with the fact private enterprise can raise the funds necessary. Airbus raised $25 billion US dollars (or equivalent in Euros) to develop the A380. And there's the history of Newfoundland. If you want to raise that much money, that means a commercial corporation, not a co-op (cooperative). I said the commercial corporation would get most of its money transporting passengers to Mars. Once established the space economy would provide propellant, food, repair and maintenance parts. So all the cost of operating the ship from Earth orbit to the surface of Mars. Propellant to depart Earth for Mars will come from a depot in Earth orbit. Propellant to fill that depot could come from one ore more asteroids, or Mars, or moons of Mars. The corporation would found and operate only one settlement, which would be the capital. All settlers would arrive at that capital city, giving the commercial corporation first chance to recruit employees. The rest of Mars would be left for others, clients.
You talked about a colony having a large territory, with more than one town within that colony. You could think of what I'm saying as one colony for the entire planet, plus both moons. But I'm saying any culture stuff is left to individual towns.
Doesn't that do what you're trying to do?
Offline
You could think of what I'm saying as one colony for the entire planet, plus both moons... Doesn't that do what you're trying to do?
First, let me clarify a minor but important point. I use the term “settlement” to describe a political subdivision that exercises power over an area that contains 144 square miles. I avoid using the word “colony” because many people in the developing world remember the colonial era and they become angry when they hear the word colony. I only use the word colony when I write about the Hutterites because they use the word colony to refer to their communities of 60 to 160 people. Let’s try to avoid using the “c” word.
Terrestrial sovereigns have made territorial claims, and some overlapping claims, to portions of Antarctica but no sovereign has been so greedy as to claim the entire continent. I believe that a terrestrial sovereign might, at the request of six chapters of the Mars Society, claim a small portion of Mars and thereby use its sovereignty to provide a legal foundation for the settlement of Mars. However, I doubt that the Republic of Malta or the Principality of Andorra or any other terrestrial sovereign that is not a party to the Outer Space Treaty would be willing to claim all of Mars, because that claim would probably be condemned as a greedy act. Let’s try to avoid alienating the entire world.
Claiming the Tharsis Region is enough initially. I selected that region because all of those volcanoes have probably coated the surrounding lands with lots of important minerals that will help plants to grow quickly and to produce nutritious food for humans.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
As soon as you have more than one sovereign power, you have competition. And when sovereigns compete, it's called war. People get killed. Those playing the game often get off scot-free, while average working individuals are conscripted (drafted) to be front-line soldiers. Soldiers die. It's mass murder for the purpose of armed robbery on a massive scale. The only way to prevent that, is to prohibit sovereigns. As I said, only municipalities allowed, towns or at most cities. We don't want "Game of Thrones" on Mars. More that one sovereign means exactly that.
I tried to avoid the "c" word as well. However, let's be blunt. If anyone invests billions of dollars to establish anything on Mars, they're going to want positive return on investment. Even the US government. If Congress is told up-front to expect a Mars settlement to declare independence, then why would they want to do it? If Congress cannot collect taxes from Mars, they why would they want to do it?
Offline
Tom:
The atmosphere of Mars is not capable of sustaining human life at this time. I therefore expect that most Martians will reside and work in pressurized structures, and that most personal residences will be components of "common interest developments".
The construction of common interest developments is becoming more and more prevalent all around the world. Please watch the first 4 minutes of the first video on the page at:
So all of one's eggs are in one basket? If everybody lives under one dome and the seal fails, then everyone dies! The initial home Martian astronauts will use will be small, about the size of a single family home or smaller, it will house about 4 to 6 astronauts, about the size of a typical American family. Now as we increase the size of the base, we are likely to bring more of these prefab structures to Mars, so there will be a number of structures sitting on landing legs with rocket engines underneath. At some point we will decide to make habitable structures out of local materials. There are two directions we can go with this, a large municipal dome or underground structure, or a lot of smaller domes made to order by each family that migrates to Mars. On Mars, the clothes one wears to go outside is literally life or death. Do you suppose there will be junior size spacesuits? If we go with 1950s America and transfer it to Mars, imagine this: June Cleaver packs the children's lunches in pressurized lunch boxes, and says to the children before the enter the airlock on the way to he school bus, "Don't forget to check your pressure seals before going outside!" "Okay Mom!" replies both the son and daughter together. The yellow pressurized Mars rover that says "School Bus" on top pulls up in front of the family dome, inside can be seen a bunch of children in their space suits, helmets removed. The children cycle through the airlock of the family dome and bound out side in leaps and jumps, Sarah leaps over a boulder on the way to the bus, Little Jonnie in his spacesuit yells, "Wait for me!" to his big sister over the suit radio, the two skip over to the bus' airlock and one after the other the two cycle through the airlock and they remove their helmets so they can talk to their friends. The school bus silently pulls away with children onboard kicking up a cloud of dust in the thin Martian atmosphere.
Is there anything wrong with this scene I just described?
Offline
As soon as you have more than one sovereign power, you have competition. And when sovereigns compete, it's called war.
The Principality of Andorra is located in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain. There are Mars Society chapters in France and Spain. Those chapters and several other chapters could jointly request that the Principality of Andorra claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars in order to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of permanent human settlements on Mars. Your concern that some other sovereign would violently attack Andorra is not realistic. France is not going to attack Andorra; Spain is not going to attack Andorra; Canada is not going to attack Andorra. And the extremely violent United States of America is not quite stupid enough to attack Andorra.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Scott Beach wrote:Tom:
The atmosphere of Mars is not capable of sustaining human life at this time. I therefore expect that most Martians will reside and work in pressurized structures, and that most personal residences will be components of "common interest developments".
So all of one's eggs are in one basket?
No. You should not assume that all of the residences in a Martian common interest development are "in one basket" (i.e., that they share the same air generation and containment system). I expect that each settlement's laws will prescribe a number of air locks and automatic emergency doors per a stated volume of residential space.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
RobertDyck wrote:As soon as you have more than one sovereign power, you have competition. And when sovereigns compete, it's called war.
The Principality of Andorra is located in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain. There are Mars Society chapters in France and Spain. Those chapters and several other chapters could jointly request that the Principality of Andorra claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars in order to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of permanent human settlements on Mars. Your concern that some other sovereign would violently attack Andorra is not realistic. France is not going to attack Andorra; Spain is not going to attack Andorra; Canada is not going to attack Andorra. And the extremely violent United States of America is not quite stupid enough to attack Andorra.
Why do you suppose no one attacks Andorra? There is very little to be gained from doing so, it is a tiny country and you would gain the approbation of all the countries in Europe if you did so, there might be sanctions imposed on your country for making such a blatantly aggressive act, and the territory you would have gained from invading that county would be small. For a similar reason Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, it had its hands full dealing with the allies, the Third Reich already had Switzerland surrounded, and Switzerland wasn't a threat, and occupying that country would only have held down troops which could have been used to fight the allies, so as long as the Allies were a going concern, Switzerland was safe from the Nazis, however should the Allies fail, Hitler could have brought some of his troops home and filled in that "hole" in his empire. Being small and inoffensive seems to be your criteria for worthiness to govern Mars, I wonder why you didn't propose that the Vatican City in Rome govern Mars, it is after all the smallest country in the World, not Andorra! Do you want the Pope to be in charge of Mars?
Offline
...I wonder why you didn't propose that the Vatican City in Rome govern Mars...
The Holy See is a party to the Outer Space Treaty so it is not a sovereign that could claim a portion of Mars. Please see the "Holy See" at...
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
RobertDyck wrote:As soon as you have more than one sovereign power, you have competition. And when sovereigns compete, it's called war.
The Principality of Andorra is located in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain. There are Mars Society chapters in France and Spain. Those chapters and several other chapters could jointly request that the Principality of Andorra claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars in order to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of permanent human settlements on Mars. Your concern that some other sovereign would violently attack Andorra is not realistic. France is not going to attack Andorra; Spain is not going to attack Andorra; Canada is not going to attack Andorra. And the extremely violent United States of America is not quite stupid enough to attack Andorra.
Did you not understand what I said? We don't want to duplicate the mistakes of Earth. History does not record a single minute of global peace. There has always been war somewhere. There is war right now. Syria is fighting a civil war: government of Assad against rebels. US backs the rebels, Russia backs the government of Assad. Saudi Arabia has a rivalry with Iran, they have both stirred up trouble with the minority in the other country's oil producing region. Saudi Arabia and Iran are backing opposite sects of the Muslim religion within Syria. Meawhile two off-shoots from al-Qaeda have captured regions of Syria not defended by either Syrian government forces or rebels: ISIS and Al-Nusra. NATO has allied with Kurds of northern Iraq to fight ISIS, but Turkey is worried those Kurds will support PKK in their fight for independence. Turkey considers PKK to be terrorists. So Turkey has fought against the Kurds despite the fact they're a member of NATO. Syria is a pawn in multiple proxy wars: US vs Russia, Saudi Arabia vs Iran, Turkey vs PKK. And I suspect the US was dragged into Syria via their military alliance with Saudi Arabia. It's one hell of a mess. We don't want that on Mars! Reality is worse than a plot from "Game of Thrones".
I'm not worried about someone invading Andorra, I'm worried about one settlement on Mars invading some other settlement. As long as you have more than one state or province or principality or what-have-you on Mars, that will happen. One purpose of the national government of Mars is to prevent that. That means no states or counties or principalities or what-have-you on Mars. None. Rather than some wanna-be sovereign on Mars starting a "Game of Thrones" conflict, the rule is no one on Mars has any authority. Only towns. Just towns. Nothing more than towns.
Offline
...no states or counties or principalities or what-have-you on Mars.
I think it would be optimal if there was a Government of Mars. I also think that the chance of getting the Outer Space Treaty amended in a way that provides for a Government of Mars is zero. So I have proposed the only other thing that I can think of: asking a sovereign that is not a party to the Outer Space Treaty to claim territorial sovereignty over a portion of Mars.
If the Republic of Malta or the Principality of Andorra wants to permit the establishment of a corporation that has the authority to establish a Government of Mars then please form such a corporation as soon as possible. Start issuing land patents (homestead grants) and city charters. That is fine with me. However, I think that a broad political base needs to be laid for the establishment of a sovereign territory on Mars. That is why I have proposed that Mars Society chapters in many different countries join together to ask a terrestrial sovereign to claim a portion of Mars and to then permit the chapters to sponsor the establishment of settlements and a spaceport (which might become a place for the Mars One mission to land).
Terrestrial sovereigns are not warring with each other because they have made conflicting, overlapping claims to portions of Antarctica. So I think your fear that a war would occur on Mars is very unrealistic.
Last edited by Scott Beach (2017-03-20 13:30:44)
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
I'm way behind you all in grasping the political models, but I like reading your ideas.
I'm not worried about someone invading Andorra, I'm worried about one settlement on Mars invading some other settlement. As long as you have more than one state or province or principality or what-have-you on Mars, that will happen. One purpose of the national government of Mars is to prevent that.
In the early days this should not be an issue at all, with loads of space for the tiny new settlements and most or all newcomers with a like-minded attitude of cooperation. Later when it could be a problem they will have to find a solution for themselves.
I read that Deep Space Industries is partnering with Luxembourg on asteroid mining. Lux. has ratified the OST, so maybe this doesn't fit our debate here.
Luxembourg gets into asteroid mining early
Anyhow, unless there is some movement on 1) revising the OST or 2) convincing a small state to claim some land on Mars without upsetting other nations, I suspect that not much will happen to give settlements a legal basis until humans actually set foot on Mars or arrive there with the intention of settling. Then the world will sit up and take notice, and who knows where it will lead. But it will pay ot be ready.
Who knows. If Andorra or other small state agreed and worked with Mars Society et. al. in the next couple of years, before any manned landings, that might catalyze other parties to get moving on setting up a real framework for Mars to be settled.
I'm going to email Jacob Haqq-Misr to see what he thinks is the best & most realistic way forward. In the session on YouTube from last year (cited way, way above in this thread) one of the panel said it wouldn't be good to move too quickly or noisily so as not to alarm 'certain powers' (paraphrased), which I think meant the UN etc who could try to ban all 'exploitation' of Mars. I don't know if that's relevant or realistic.
-- Because it's there! --
Offline
Robert: I think that I might be misunderstanding you when you use the term “county” or “counties”. Every bit of California is in one county or another and every county is a “political subdivision” of the State of California. And every court is, for example, “The Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda”.
The “settlements” that I am proposing are not the legal equivalent of California counties. They are better described as “municipal corporations”.
Andorra’s “Tharsis Region” would not be covered from top to bottom with contiguous counties (the way that California is covered).
What do you mean when you use the term “counties”?
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
So they're the legal equivalent of unitary counties? No particular city governments governing the actual cities in the counties, just the county authority (call it a city all you like - unless it's strictly limited to a single urban area, it's not a city).
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
So they're the legal equivalent of unitary counties?
“Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland an administrative reorganization in 1973 replaced that country’s six administrative counties and two county boroughs with 26 single-tier, or ‘unitary,’ administrative districts. These administrative districts are called unitary because they have only a single layer of government, unlike administrative counties, which are further subdivided into districts”; https://www.britannica.com/topic/county
We did not use the term “unitary county” in California but we had the “City and County of San Francisco”, where the city and the county governments have become consolidated into one government. They tried to get that kind of consolidation approved in Sacramento County but the people voted “No”.
In the Los Angeles basin they have a conurbation; numerous cities have grown together and things are very confusing.
Initially there would not be any cities in a “settlement” but as the population of the settlement grew larger and larger the people of the settlement could vote to authorize the formation of one or more cities.
If all of the voters in a settlement are extreme libertarians then they might vote "no" on a proposal to allow the formation of cities, because a city must impose taxes in order to pay for the services that the city provides.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Martian Settlements
Space Settlements: A Design Study was published by NASA in 1975.
http://www.saintannsny.org/depart/compu … oneill.pdf
I knew a person who attended the design study, which was held a Stanford University. It was during that study that they decided to use the term “space settlement” rather than “space colony”. They were aware that the term “colony” was disliked by people in developing countries because those people had recent and highly negative experiences with European powers and their violent terrestrial colonization programs.
In Wikipedia, “space settlement” is redirected to “space colonization”. However, I still prefer the term “settlement”. In the St. Lawrence Iroquoian language the word kanata or canada, means “village” or “settlement”.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline